1 Criminal Bail Application No.381 of 2022 (Or. Exh.1) IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK, AT – NASHIK.

( Presided over by Mr. M. H. Shaikh) Criminal Bail Application No.381 of 2022 CNR No. MHNS010012822022

1.Dnyaneshwar Pandurang Khalkar
Age : 60 years, Occ : Agriculture

2.Sopan Pandurang Khalkar
Age : 55 years, Occ : Agriculture

3.Balu @ Mangesh Pandurang Khalkar
Age : 41 years, Occ : Agriculture

4.Prasad Dnyaneshwar Khalkar
Age : 21 years, Occ : Agriculture

5.Tukaram Digamber Khalkar
Age : 46 years, Occ : Agriculture
All R/o : Khalkar Mala, Old Chehadi Road, Nashik­Road Tal. and
Dist. Nashik. .. Applicants/Accused.

V/S

State of Maharashtra Through – PI, Nashik Road Police Station (C.R. No. I – 9/2022) .. Respondent/State.

Appearance :
Ld. Adv. Shri. Pravin R. Shejwal for Applicants/Accused.

Ld. A.P.P. Shri. Sachin Gorwadkar for Respondent/State.

Ld. Adv. Shri. Sujit R. Borade for Complainant/Intervener.

ORDER BELOW EXH. No.1
(Delivered on 24th March, 2022)

1.This is an application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail in C. R. No. I ­ 9/2022 registered with the respondent Nashik Road Police Station for an offence punishable under Sections 326, 324, 504, 506. 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.Perusal of the F.I.R. reflects that the incident occurred on 06.01.2022 at 1:30 p.m. in front of the house of the complainant.

It is alleged in the FIR that, as the complainant did not withdraw the Civil Appeal filed against the applicants, therefore, the applicants were abusing the complainant. The complainant asked them not to abuse, on this quarrel took place and these applicants assaulted the complainant and her relatives, who came to rescue her with iron rods, sticks etc. and injured the complainant and the witnesses. The matter came to be reported to the Police.

3.It is the case of the applicants/accused that, they are innocent and have not committed any offence. Investigation is practically completed. There are dependents upon the applicants. No purpose will be served in keeping the applicants behind the bar.

There is a Civil dispute between the parties, who are relatives of each other. There are cross complaints filed by the parties with the Police.

Nothing is to be recovered or discovered at the instance of the applicants. Case is triable by the Ld. J.M.F.C. Applicants/Accused are ready to abide by the terms and conditions. The absconding accused No.9 surrendered beofre ld. J.M.F.C. Therefore, prayed to allow the application.

4.Respondent filed their say vide Exh.4 and reiterated the contents of the F.I.R. and the investigation carried­out by them. The grounds for rejection are that, the offence is serious in nature, applicants/accused may tampered the evidence and also threatened the witnesses and pressurized them. Application is not maintainable as there is no change in circumstances as was there at the time of rejection of previous bail application. Therefore, prayed to reject the application.

5.In this matter, complainant intervened. She filed her say vide Exh.7 and objected for grant of bail , contending therein that the offence alleged are serious in nature and the application is not maintainable.

6.Heard Ld. Advocate for the applicants/accused, Ld. A.P.P. for the State and Ld. Advocate for complainant/intervener. Gone through the entire material placed on record.

7.Upon hearing and going through the material placed on record, what can be gathered is that, initially offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. was leveled and thereafter Section 326 of I.P.C. came to be added. Initially, three accused persons came to be arrested and were produced before the Ld. J.M.F.C. Complainant appeared before the Ld. J.M.F.C., therefore interim bail was granted to them and thereafter interim bail was made absolute. As Section 326 of I.P.C.

came to be added, therefore it seems that the Ld. J.M.F.C. was pleased to grant bail to those three accused persons, who were arrested.

8.The first point raised by the respondent and the intervener is about the maintainability of the application in hand.

This is the second bail application filed by the applicant/accused. The previous bail application was rejected on 15/03/2022. It is argued that the absconding accused came to be surrendered before the ld.J.M.F.C. and his custody was taken by the I.O. and now he is in M.C.R., therefore, there is change in circumstances. On the other hand, it is argued that it is a cosmetic change in circumstances and not the actual change. Upon hearing and going through the material placed on record in this regard, this Court finds that while rejecting the previous bail application, besides the aspect of seriousness of the offence, involvement of the accused in the crime, residing in the same locality and pressurising the complainant were also considered, but the main aspect was about the absconding accused being a police personnel is yet to be arrested. Now, the absconding accused is in M.C.R. and therefore, this Court finds that there is a change in circumstances and therefore the application in hand is maintainable.

9.Now coming to the merits of the case, this Court while rejecting the anticipatory bail application and the regular application of these applicants held that the applicants are prima faice seen to be involved in the crime, which is of serious in nature. This observation was also made by the Hon’ble High Court while rejecting the anticipatory bail applications of these applicants. However, one has to keep in mind that though the applicants are seen in the photographs as well as in the CCTV footage, collected by the I.O., assaulting the complainant and the witnesses, still this Court finds that for an indefinite period the applicants cannot be kept in jail.

There is a counter case filed by the applicants against the complainant and the witnesses. There is a civil dispute going on between the parties. All 9 accused persons came to be arrested. Out of these 9 accused, 3 accused persons are already released on bail by the ld. J.M.F.C. Investigation is on verge of the completion. The other observations made by this Court in the previous bail application about the apprehension of the respondents can be taken care by imposing stringent conditions. Offence is triable by the ld. J.M.F.C.

Moreover, the complainant and the injured victims are discharged from the hospital. Therefore, this Court finds that now the discretion of bail can be invoked in favour of the applicants. Therefore, this

Court holds that the application succeeds. Hence, the order :­

O R D E R

1. Criminal Bail Application No.381/2022 is allowed.

2.Applicant Nos.1.Dnyaneshwar Pandurang Khalkar, 2. Sopan Pandurang Khalkar, 3. Balu @ Mangesh Pandurang Khalkar, 4. Prasad Dnyaneshwar Khalkar, 5. Tukaram Digamber Khalkar be released on bail on their executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/­ each with one solvent surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the concern Ld. J.M.F.C.

3.Applicants not to tamper the evidence and to co­operate the Investigating Officer as and when he calls under prior written intimation.

4.Applicants not to threaten and pressurize the complainant and the witnesses.

5.Applicants not to commit similar offence in future.

6.Applicants not to enter the place of incident till the filing of charge­sheet.

7.Bail before the concern Ld. J.M.F.C.

8.Office to inform this order to the Respondent/State.

9.In the above terms, the Criminal Bail Application No.381/2022 stands disposed off accordingly.

Digitally signed by MUSHTAQUE MUSHTAQUE HUSSAIN HUSSAIN SHAIKH SHAIKH Date: 2022.03.24
16:52:02 +0530 Place : Nashik. (M. H. Shaikh) Date : 24/03/2022 Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.